Incendiary Image of the Day: Cinemark Gun Ban Notice

 The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) contacted TTAG to document Cinemark Holding‘s firearms ban. The company’s website makes no mention of the policy and their PR department’s not answering the phone. The SAF asked us to ask our readers to provide a photo of the “no guns” notice. Several commentators used their Google-Fu to find this notice. I guess they forgot to mount it on the back of the exit door through which the Batman Massacre shooter James Holmes entered. [NB: This post was re-written from the original request for the image above. The comments reflect the earlier version.]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

65 Responses to Incendiary Image of the Day: Cinemark Gun Ban Notice

  1. avatarFrasch says:

    Ah nothing better than advancing ones agenda on the back of a tragedy eh?

    • avatarAndrew says:

      “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”
      -Rahm Emanuel

    • avatarGS650G says:

      Do you seriously think they are not going to use this as a narrative for gun control? If we don’t get the facts and perspective out there now they define the debate.
      If you’re OK with that then fine.

    • avatarAharon says:

      I know what you mean. Those anti-gun nuts and politician who want to make the people unarmed sheep they can push around will now call for more regs that further strip innocent law abiding citizens or people of their moral right to defend themselves with guns. Just consider how Canada’s police-nanny state and fascist gun control laws has only increased violent crime, eh?

      • avatarRobert says:

        Yea I’m sure that would have done people well in that situation…a big gun fight at the movies just what the kids wanted ehhh…go figure people would try to capitalize on this tragity

        • avatarPaul Revere says:

          “Yea I’m sure that would have done people well in that situation…a big gun fight at the movies just what the kids wanted ehhh…go figure people would try to capitalize on this tragity”

          So Robert, what your saying is that a “big gunfight” is somehow worse that 62 people being shot of which 12 of them fatally? Really? Do you really have such a low opinion of your ability to defend yourself that the above seems reasonable to you? I hope this isn’t your intellectual A game because you need to let the adults take over now.

          The reality is all it would have taken was one concealed carry holder to shoot that guy in the face and there would have been no more shootout. He certainly would never have lived long enough to reload. That jack is a fact!

    • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

      Actually, the 2nd Amendment Foundation is the one trying to advance a radical agenda. Do you really believe that if more people had been armed, one of them would have stopped the shooter?

      Hardly.

    • avatarTerri says:

      I agree! If they ever succeed in banning guns, the only ones who have arms will be the criminals!!! I truly believe they are using the recent deadly mass shootings to push their agenda. The people that do these sort of things are mentally ill. They are CUTTING mental health care benefits for these people who need help and trying to put a bandaid over this gaping wound! Forget the gun ban because it only hurts law-abiding citizens; instead make health care more readily available!

  2. avatarjwm says:

    the brady campaigns agenda is to restrict our rights and further erode freedom in this country. the saf is attempting to stop that. brady campaign fights dirty, so must the opposotion.

    • How is getting photo confirmation that Cinemark bans (legal) guns in its theaters “fighting dirty”?

      • avatarMr. Pierogie says:

        I don’t see anything dirty here on the part of SAF either, they just want to show that this tragedy could have been less severe, if not prevented all together. After all, the gunman must have known that due to the ‘no guns allowed’ policy there would be nobody to take him out.

        The SAF is standing up for the law abiding gun owners, and that’s why I’m a member.

    • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

      That is what people always say to justify their immoral acts.

  3. avatarSanchanim says:

    @Frasch
    Yes it is unfortunate, but when you have most of the main stream media complaining about guns, and how bad they are, despite us all being saddened over this tragedy then yes you need to stay on top of things.
    I don’t think the SAF would even be asking if major politicians were not on TV right now proclaiming a repeal of 2A.
    At this point I am still simply in shock over it. It is truly a sad day. I pray for the victims and their families, and hope that there can be healing.

  4. avatarPhil W. says:

    This is about documenting a Cinemark policy of banning self-defense on their property, not advancing some imagined “agenda.”

  5. avatarIndyEric says:

    Google Images is your friend:
    http://www.vcdl.org/static/gue.html#Cinemark

    • avatarthebronze says:

      Not so. That says it’s a picture from TX.

      • avatartwency says:

        SAF just asked for an image form any Cinemark cinema, so that image would appear to suffice. They might want a higher quality or more recent one though.

  6. avatarDustin says:

    Definitely a tough situation. Personally, I don’t trust my gun skills enough to feel comfortable carrying a gun into a theater full of people and small children. That said, if I was in a theater with my family and some guy walked in with 2 pistols, a rifle, and a shotgun… a bullet proof vest and a tear gas bomb… I’d certainly hope there was an off duty police officer, military guy, or other really, really well trained individual there carrying to stop the son of a bitch.

    • avatarIndyEric says:

      “Definitely a tough situation. Personally, I don’t trust my gun skills enough to feel comfortable carrying a gun into a theater full of people and small children.”

      Uh….Do you carry at all?

      • avatarHAVE GUN says:

        “Uh….Do you carry at all?”

        I know where Dustin is coming from, I have very similar concerns. Our only difference is I carry anyway, trusting I will have the temperament to realize when not to shoot.

        Hope to never have to find out I am correct.

        • avatarIndyEric says:

          My point is, it doesn’t matter if you carry in a packed theater or a downtown city block. The second you step out your front door, it’s a tremendous responsibility. I don’t see the difference between a theater and any public/crowded place.

        • avatarDustin says:

          Sorry, I was just using the current situation as an example and thought that made it clear. I do NOT currently carry – theater, or any other public place. I wasn’t trying to say a theater was different than any other place.

          I currently own a Glock (and several rifles), and have been really considering getting an FN FiveSeven (which is actually how I found this site… was reading their review on it). I’ve thought about going and getting my CCW many times with my Glock, but don’t believe I’ve got enough experience yet to handle a loaded gun in ANY public situation. I just recently joined my local Rod and Gun club, so I’m working on it. And if I ever actually fork out the cash for an FN FiveSeven… I’ll more than likely take the time to learn it well enough to go get my CCW.

        • avatarDallen says:

          Funny, Dustin, that’s how I found the site (I ended up getting one. They’re awesome, but hard to find ammo for.)

          My parents are the exact same way. They both have their CCPs but they don’t carry. They don’t feel comfortable enough with their skills, despite having taken many classes, to carry in public. They, especially my mom, are excellent marksmen, but they don’t trust that, under stress, they could perform the same. I personally plan (alas, I am not quite old enough) to carry everywhere allowed by law. If an establishment isn’t posted, I’m carrying…

        • avatarBruce W. Krafft says:

          Dallen, I get my 5.7×28 at Sportsman’s Guide: http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/browse/ammo-pistol-57-x-28.aspx?c=95&s=881&stk=1&d=121

          ETA: And I just noticed it’s backordered . . . oops

        • avatarSo Cal George says:

          This is why I train, teach and compete with firearms. The only way to get confident and proficient with a firearm is to be properly trained. Obviously the bad guys are training and preparing.
          I will also not frequent an establishment that leaves me defenseless. I would rather have my gun and risk being asked to leave, than becoming a statistic.
          Could a trained citizen have made a difference? We will never know unless this horrible tragedy happens again. I certainly pray it never does.
          Until then I will train both mentally and physically that I may recognize quickly and respond quickly to a potential threat to stop the situation, whatever that threat may be.
          People do not announce bad intentions, thus the need for trained concealed carry.

    • avatarRob Morse says:

      71 were hit out of several hundred in the theater. Suppose there were a few per hundred carrying. That makes four to 8 shooters taking on the gunman. He does not know who they are and the darkness is now in their favor, not in his. How many of the carriers are behind the shooter and out of his line of sight?

      I’ve shot in low light and almost no light tactical situations. It can be done and done quite quickly. You might only hit an arm, a leg, a shoulder or a neck, but the shooter will stop shooting.

      Why not get the training and see for yourself.

  7. avatarJSIII says:

    Unless my state or the State I am visiting has a legal consiquence behind a no gun sign f them. I will cc where I want and none will be the wiser.Same concept as the brown paper bag around the beer bottle and dont ask dont tell.

  8. avatarCellude says:

    Personally I am fine with no gun zones, HOWEVER I feel that a law needs to be put in place that the business then needs to have measures in place that prevents anyone for carry a gun in. Metal detectors and the like since only law abiding citizens obey firearms signs. Airports and concerts have them. Guns are not allowed there and there haven’t been many mass shootings at those places due to the protection measures and not just a sign. Schools and the like only have signs that do nothing for the wicked. If a business can’t afford to provide us protection measures then allow ourselves to provide our own security.

    • avatarmatt says:

      I feel that a law needs to be put in place that the business then needs to have measures in place that prevents anyone for carry a gun in. Metal detectors and the like… concerts have them…

      What? Do you know how many people wear steel toed boots? Even if theyre not steel toe, boots often have metal shanks in the soles, I know jungle boots do. I’m going to have to unlace my 14-20 eyelet boots ever time I walk in to a store? And no concert or similar event i’ve ever been to has had a metal detector. The only places i’ve ever been to that had metal detectors were airports and some schools in shitty neighborhoods in Chicago.

      • avatarCellude says:

        Exactly, so those places would need to remove the sign and allow CCW because the owner would feel that the cost v. benefit isn’t there.

        Hum..most events I have been to everyone gets wanded for weapons.

        • avatarRAN58 says:

          Having metal detectors, wanding people wouldn’t have mattered at this venue. The shooter entered via an emergency exit. He killed or wounded 70 people. The only thing that would have made a difference would have been people carrying concealed.

        • avatarmatt says:

          Must be a regional thing.

    • avatarPascal says:

      It would not have mattered. The person in the case purchased a movie ticket went into the theater went out the emergency door and jammed it so it would not close, went out to his car near the door put on his gear, then went back in to shoot the place up.

      Sounds like all they need to do is have better security — for example — a door alarm. There were even cops already on the scene for crowd control and they knew nothing was going down.

      No viable counter measure would have stopped this determined attacker.

    • avatarRAN58 says:

      How would having a gun free zone help? The movie theater was a gun free zone and look what happened? Having metal detectors at this venue wouldn’t have made a difference as the shooter entered through an emergency exit. The police responded within 60-90 seconds, they were actually on site already for crowd control and yet 70 people were killed or injured and the shooter still managed to make it back out and into his car in the back where he was found sitting waiting for the police. The only thing that would have made a difference is people in the theater carrying concealed and shooting the gunman.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      We don’t even need that. A simple law saying that if they ban guns, then they are legally responsible for any violent incident (such as the one in Colorado). Hit the company up with both massive civil suits for wrongful death as well as hitting the manager / executives who initiated the anti-self defense policy with 2nd degree murder and maybe companies will think before they ban.

      • avatarWoodenGun says:

        We don’t need any more laws regarding guns. It is a free country and they are a private company able to make their own choices. If you don’t like their choice regarding gun possession on their property, then don’t spend your money there.

        Kinda like the IHOP deal in Michigan.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Which is pretty much what I’m stating – they are free to ban guns if they want, but they must be held legally responsible for preventing people from being able to defend themselves.

          It’s ridiculous that a business can be held legally responsible if you slip and break your arm because someone accidentally spilled water but they’re not held responsible if they intentionally ban self defense and someone is injured or killed as a result.

      • avatarLongPurple says:

        + 1
        It seems reasonable that they have the authority to deny somone lawfully armed to have access to their property. It seems equally reasonable that by exercising that authority over their property, they are taking the responsibility for the personal safety of everyone who wishes to be armed, but was denied that right.

      • avatarDaniel says:

        There may not be any need for any such law. It seems to me that a good lawyer could apply the principle of strict liability to this scenario and get judgement(s) for many millions from Cinemark.

      • avatarTony says:

        FLAME DELETED law Suits for wrongful death?? The theatre is a place for entertainment, I can see it now, a gun fight over someone talking during a movie, or a gun fight over a seat. Is this really where we want to go? Im all for our rights to have Guns, but but a business has the right to not have them in their buildings. If you do not want to frequent that building, that will be your choice. I do not know of any Theatre Chain that will allow firearms in the buildings, nor do I know of any entertainment venue that will.

  9. avatarAharon says:

    Took this off the web from Cinemark’s mobile movie details.

    Film:
    Machine Gun Preacher

    Synopsis:
    “When ex-biker-gang member Sam Childers makes the life-changing decision to go to East Africa to help repair homes destroyed by civil war, he is outraged by the unspeakable horrors faced by the region’s vulnerable populace, especially the children. Ignoring the warnings of more experienced aide workers, Sam breaks ground for an orphanage where it’s most needed-in the middle of territory controlled by the brutal Lord’s Resistance Army, a renegade militia that forces youngsters to become soldiers before they even reach their teens. Determined to save as many as possible, he leads armed missions deep into enemy territory to retrieve kidnapped children, restoring peace to their lives-and eventually his own.”

    — Then in real life, the theater company is against the people taking steps to protect themselves.

  10. avatarAdrian says:

    The United States needs to ban guns. Guns kill people too easily. It’s a matter of public safety and not a matter of personal liberties especially when the acts of one person amplified with power firearms can have such a disastrous consequence.

    • avatarDallen says:

      “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
      Yes, I know I just posted this elsewhere, but it applies here just the same.

      By the way, cars kill people easily as well. In fact they kill more people in the US than guns (on average). Do you want them banned? I will not give up my rights so you can feel safe. In fact, it’s because of my rights that I feel safe. Firearms are tools, no more and no less. How they are used as a tool determines the consequences. To paraphrase a book: When a car pulls up and armed men jump out, our reaction depends on whether they are policemen responding to a call for help or armed robbers committing a crime. In this case, a man committed a crime. He used firearms as his tool. So what? He could have used a hammer. Would you be calling for the banning of hammers? NO! It’s a matter of perspective. But one thing is sure: Don’t blame the tool for the wielders’ actions.

    • avatarSteve Bragg says:

      Adrian,

      If you feel so strongly about it, YOU COME AND GET MY GUNS. You personally. You will not live to complete the transaction.

      You and your statist friends had better understand this right now: the day gun confiscation goes into effect in the United States is a day when CIVIL WAR breaks out. And there will be blood in the streets like you have never seeen.

      You’re willing to waste MILLIONS of lives just so you can feel better? Because when guns are banned, only the criminals will have guns, by your definition. And they WILL have them.

    • avatarFloyd D. Barber says:

      Adrian, Little Bo Peep is looking for you.

  11. states should start looking into making the Gun Free Zone Liability Act law: http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm

  12. avatarFrankInFL says:

    tinyurl.com/TipgPt :-)

    No, I’m not a prophet, just an observer…

  13. avatarKalashnikat says:

    If the shooter is rational, he has to ask himself whether he really wants to go into a room where some finite portion of the population may be carrying with tritium night sights or a laser sight, or whether he’d need to pick a gun-free zone to operate in…he would logically tend to choose the “gun-free” zone over some other gathering…

    If the shooter is not rational, he is still more likely to “run up the score” in a “gun free” zone…though it’s disappointing that no one could tackle him from behind and bring him down…I know most folks would be stunned or in denial for a while, and I haven’t heard it cleared up whether it was a pepper spray cannister or a flash-bang that he used at the start, but there had to have been some opportunities to come up from behind….

  14. avatarNick Johnson says:

    In Texas Concealed Handgun License holders would not have to follow this sign. Businesses have to provide different signage that meets the 30.06 rule. The business can ask you to leave but you cant get into legal trouble.

  15. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    I will never again go into a cinema unarmed, sign or no sign.

    Guess I’m a crook. :/

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.